My point is a simple one, despite apparent similarities YEC ideas of today
have no roots in the pre-1800 period, as those "geologists" were using
Genesis in a different way which was far more tentative. In the late 17th
Century Ray etc used the Flood as an explanation of strata more as an
inference of the best bit from the evidence available rather than something
to be held on to dogmatically as if their faith would collapse if they did
not accept it.

There are simply no candidates in the past who are comparable in the science
to YEC, except McCready Price and a few like Fairholme in the 1830s whom
Mortenson of AIG claimed were "scientists".
Just because before 1700 it was possible to accept "special creation and a
Young earth" - no evidence to contrary, it does not mean that those people
approached the natural world in the same cavalier way as do YECs.

Michael
> Michael et al -
> I knew when I wrote that that you & or Glenn would want to correct me -
peobably
> in different ways! But I wasn't being dogmatic about a particular date -
just guessed
> at ~1800 because at that time one could still accept special creation & a
young earth
> (relative to present estimates) & scientifically respectable. But my only
real point
> was that in order to admit YEC as an equal partner in scientific
discussions we'd have
> to go way back. How far back isn't the point.
>
> Shalom,
> George
Received on Thu Jan 22 11:32:23 2004